ScienceDaily (Aug. 30, 2012) — In states where medical exemptions from vaccination requirements for kindergarten students are easier to get, exemption rates are higher, potentially compromising herd immunity and posing a threat to children and others who truly should not be immunized because of underlying conditions, according to a study published in The Journal of Infectious Diseases and now available online.

Quote:

Their findings suggest that requiring more accountability of both parents and physicians for granting medical exemptions can be helpful in ensuring that these exemptions are valid and not used as an alternative to non-medical exemptions because they are easier to obtain.

Ugh, if people are anti-vax they should be honest about it. Lying is, in my opinion, a despicable way circumvent state law. To clarify, I think certain actions, such as lying, are disgusting, not certain people.

Our politicians lie all the time about different things to circumvent laws, and law enforcement does this as well ....are they any different? The difference is, they have each other to cover each other, kinda like pharma....

Quote:

Originally Posted by marsupial-mom

Ugh, if people are anti-vax they should be honest about it. It's disgusting that some anti-vax people will lie in order to circumvent state law.

Our politicians lie all the time about different things to circumvent laws, and law enforcement does this as well ....are they any different? The difference is, they have each other to cover each other, kinda like pharma....

Ugh, if people are anti-vax they should be honest about it. It's disgusting that some anti-vax people will lie in order to circumvent state law.

I think it's disgusting that the government wants to take away parental right to choose what is in the best interest of THEIR child and in making exemptions harder to get, put parents in a position where they feel they have to lie to protect their child. Let me ask you something. To what lengths would you go to protect your child from harm? Would you lie to protect your child from danger? and please don't respond with "but vaccines are not harmful". What I'm asking you to do is put yourself in another person's shoes. IF you believed/knew with your entire being/soul that something was dangerous for your child - to what lengths would you go to protect them?

If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson.

Why not just homeschool, private school, or use one of the more honest vax exemptions?

How can parents make "honest" vaccine decisions when they are lied to by governments, pharmaceutical companies and the medical profession? We are given fake science and sold snake oil. Why should we believe that modern-day quacks have the truth? Why should the government, pharmaceutical companies and doctors determine what is best for us and our children? Why are we required to buy what they are selling if we don't want it?

t

"There are only two mistakes you can make in the search for the Truth. Not starting, and not going all the way." ~ Mark Passio

Ugh, if people are anti-vax they should be honest about it. It's .......... that some anti-vax people will lie in order to circumvent state law.

The state laws on vaccines are based on lies from the pharmaceutical industry on vaccine safety/efficacy, and on disease prevalence/danger.

If a parent has to circumvent state law in order to protect the health of their children, obviously the health of their children is of far more importance than a law that was enacted precisely because of such lies.

If you believe in herd immunity, then of course you would believe that the more unvaccinated people there are, the more that compromises herd immunity. For those of us who believe in herd immunity, the idea of lying for vax exemption to go to public school (where the rules are quite clear) isnt okay. People send their children to school, vaccinate, mostly because they believe that the more children that are vaccinated the less likely the kids are to get VPD's. If that isn't something you believe, then maybe you should rethink going to public school? Whether or not to keep DD up to date on her vaccines once she gets a little older (we are selective, but she's at home), will be solely based on whether or not we choose to homeschool. If my kids are going to school, they'll be getting vaccines, unless they have a medical reason for not getting them.

The key word here is "potentially". Meaning they really don't know and are speculating based on the theory (not fact) of herd immunity.

If I lived in a state where a philosophical or religious exemption was not available and I was unable to get a legitimate medical exemption, I would either homeschool or move to a different state. I don't think most non-vaxers are lying to get exemptions, but having a moral objection to vaccines falls fully under the philosophical or reasons of conscience category.

If you believe in herd immunity, then of course you would believe that the more unvaccinated people there are, the more that compromises herd immunity. For those of us who believe in herd immunity, the idea of lying for vax exemption to go to public school (where the rules are quite clear) isnt okay. People send their children to school, vaccinate, mostly because they believe that the more children that are vaccinated the less likely the kids are to get VPD's. If that isn't something you believe, then maybe you should rethink going to public school? Whether or not to keep DD up to date on her vaccines once she gets a little older (we are selective, but she's at home), will be solely based on whether or not we choose to homeschool. If my kids are going to school, they'll be getting vaccines, unless they have a medical reason for not getting them.

I disagree with this. Most people (of course not all) who send their kids to public school and vaccinate do so because primarily they believe vaccines are good for their children and feel they protect their children from said disease. If they believe in herd immunity then thats a bonus, but it is NOT the primary reason they vaccinate. Parents who vaccinate believe they are protecting their children from harm. Parents that don't vaccinate believe the exact same thing. Perhaps you could answer the question I proposed above. To what lengths would you go to protect your child? Would you give up your own life for your child? I know I would in a heartbeat. But you wouldn't stoop to lying to protet your child from what you knew to be grave harm?

Im not advocating lying. I want to make that clear. I exempt my child honetly and thankfully have not had a problem doing so, HOWEVER if I had a child that had had a horrific reaction to a vaccine, but that horrific reaction was categorically denied by his doctors or anyone else I had gone to for help, AND the school was then telling me I had to keep injecting my child with something that I believed had caused my child damage, I honestly don't know what I would do. I know I'd sooner die than knowingly cause my child further harm. What would YOU do? What Im saying is I can understand WHY some parents feel they have no choice but to lie. What a terrible position to be in. Thats what I find reprehensible, that parents would be put in that position in the first place.

And to throw out well then you should homeschool is just ridiculous. Some parents can't afford NOT to work for a living.

If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson.

If you believe in herd immunity, then of course you would believe that the more unvaccinated people there are, the more that compromises herd immunity. For those of us who believe in herd immunity, the idea of lying for vax exemption to go to public school (where the rules are quite clear) isnt okay. People send their children to school, vaccinate, mostly because they believe that the more children that are vaccinated the less likely the kids are to get VPD's. If that isn't something you believe, then maybe you should rethink going to public school? Whether or not to keep DD up to date on her vaccines once she gets a little older (we are selective, but she's at home), will be solely based on whether or not we choose to homeschool. If my kids are going to school, they'll be getting vaccines, unless they have a medical reason for not getting them.

No.

Our children are guaranteed a free education. There is nothing in the Constitution that takes this right away if we refuse to inject them with potentially harmful chemicals.

The theory of herd immunity is only proven to be true when natural infection takes place. But even if herd immunity as the result of vaccination were true, the problem is that there is still a significant subgroup of children who will have reactions both more severe and more frequently than we were led to believe by the manufacturers.

Since there has been absolutely NO effort on the part of either the manufacturers or the doctors to identify this subgroup before vaccination, it is perfectly valid for parents to say, "no, I don't want my child to risk being part of this subgroup until more is known."

And, as has been said (and proven) a gazillion times, the vaccine manufacturers have lied about the safety/efficacy of the vaccines, and the government has lied about both prevalence and risks of the supposedly vaccine-preventable diseases.

Under such circumstances, it is absolutely unethical to suggest that people who don't want to inject their children (with lied-about chemicals in order to supposedly protect them against lied-about diseases) should quit their jobs and stay home and homeschool their children, and it violates the right to a free education.

IF you believed/knew with your entire being/soul that something was dangerous for your child - to what lengths would you go to protect them?

In that situation, any decent/good mother who loved her child should be willing to lie to the school regarding religious/personal beliefs. The school already knows the child isn't vaccinated. The lie is only about the reason--does it really matter at that point if it is because God doesn't want the child vaccinated, or because the mother doesn't want the child vaccinated?

Our children are guaranteed a free education. There is nothing in the Constitution that takes this right away if we refuse to inject them with po
Under such circumstances, it is absolutely unethical to suggest that people who don't want to inject their children (with lied-about chemicals in order to supposedly protect them against lied-about diseases) should quit their jobs and stay home and homeschool their children, and it violates the right to a free education.

Taxi- The same thing could be said about tons of other things about public school- there are rules there. While, yes, our children constitutionally get a free education, there are guidelines that are followed by putting children in public school. I also think it's really wrong that they make kids hold their pee (personally, I believe that not urinating when you need to go can cause all kinds of health problems), that public school systems spray chemicals all inside their buildings for pests, that public schools have children walking through carpool lines breathing in insane amounts of car exhaust, and a million other things that I disagree with. But I believe that when you make the decision to get that free education, you have to make compromises.

But I believe that when you make the decision to get that free education, you have to make compromises.

Compromises, yes. But invasive procedures, particularly when we know that there are risks, are not compromises. And when the government LIES about those risks, we should be challenging the idea that an invasive procedure is a "compromise."

Invasive procedures should not be a prerequisite for ANYTHING guaranteed by the Constitution.

Our children are guaranteed a free education. There is nothing in the Constitution that takes this right away if we refuse to inject them with potentially harmful chemicals.

The theory of herd immunity is only proven to be true when natural infection takes place. But even if herd immunity as the result of vaccination were true, the problem is that there is still a significant subgroup of children who will have reactions both more severe and more frequently than we were led to believe by the manufacturers.

Since there has been absolutely NO effort on the part of either the manufacturers or the doctors to identify this subgroup before vaccination, it is perfectly valid for parents to say, "no, I don't want my child to risk being part of this subgroup until more is known."

And, as has been said (and proven) a gazillion times, the vaccine manufacturers have lied about the safety/efficacy of the vaccines, and the government has lied about both prevalence and risks of the supposedly vaccine-preventable diseases.

Under such circumstances, it is absolutely unethical to suggest that people who don't want to inject their children (with lied-about chemicals in order to supposedly protect them against lied-about diseases) should quit their jobs and stay home and homeschool their children, and it violates the right to a free education.

There is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees a free education. It might be state law, but there's nothing in the US constitution.

People send their children to school, vaccinate, mostly because they believe that the more children that are vaccinated the less likely the kids are to get VPD's. If that isn't something you believe, then maybe you should rethink going to public school?

Why are you singling out public school?

Vaccine laws apply equally to public and private schools. And in some states, home schools as well.

There is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees a free education. It might be state law, but there's nothing in the US constitution.

Ok how about the fact that it is a basic human right and is recognized as such.

Also every state has a provision in its constitution, commonly called the "education article," that guarantees some form of free public education, usually through the twelfth grade. Just talking about different constitutions is all. The bottom line is every child residing in this country no matter what state they live in is entitled to a free education through high school.

If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson.

General Assembly res. 217A (III), 10 December 1948

"The General Assembly,

Proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction."

Article 26

1. Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

I haven't come across this issue personally, yet, but if I had to submit either a medical or philosophical exemption, I would have no qualms with opting for medical even for a healthy child. I don't think it's a lie, either- I have concerns that using prophylactic medication on my child will create medical issues not currently present, and I have valid reasons to be concerned. What's not medical about that?

"The laws of Illinois and the United States guarantee all students in Illinois access to a quality education. This requires every district to guarantee all students equal access to the full range of programs and resources."

and

"Additionally, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that undocumented children have the same right as U.S. citizens and permanent residents to receive a free public education."

"Nevertheless, once a state decides to provide an education to its children, as every state has, the provision of such education must be consistent with other federally guaranteed constitutional rights, such as the Fourteenth Amendment's right to equal protection under the law and the First Amendment's right to the free exercise of, and the nonestablishment of, religion. Therefore, even though the U.S. Constitution does not, in the first instance, require that an education be provided, it nevertheless has had a significant effect on American education."

"Any treatment of education and constitutional rights must begin with the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees every citizen equal protection under the law."

So if you have equal protection under the law to attend the public school in your area, no matter what your skin color, sexual orientation, or religion, that right extends to whether or not you have been injected with chemicals or not.

There is no law saying you can't go to school an hour, a day, or a week after receiving a live-virus vaccine, when you might be contagious. There is also no law saying that you can't go to school with the sniffles or a tummy ache, even though you might be coming down with an easily-spread virus, EVEN IF YOU ARE FULLY VACCINATED, and you might be at the height of contagion.

It would clearly be denying someone "equal protection under the law" to prevent a healthy person from attending school because they have not been injected with a chemical cocktail.